The Right is failing in the emotional war over guns

posted at 6:01 pm on January 6, 2016 by Taylor Millard

The Right isn’t doing its job when it comes to convincing people guns are okay. Yes, open carry is legal in 46 states and groups like Institute for Justice have won important court battles over Chicago and Washington D.C.’s draconian gun laws. The problem is these wins are really only temporary because the U.S. Supreme Court can change its mind, and laws can be changed. The Right has got to get better at messaging on why it’s okay for people to own guns or the Left will keep winning the emotional battle year after year and tragedy after tragedy.

What’s the narrative from yesterday’s speech on gun executive action? It isn’t just President Barack Obama’s announcement (which AP already explained won’t do anything and Ed analyzed), but the fact he cried while talking about children dying in a mass shooting. It doesn’t matter whether the tears were real or not (as some on the Right are stupidly focusing on), but that he choked up while mentioning dead children. That’s what going to be remembered from all of this. It’s why pictures of families crying at funerals or outside the scene of a mass shooting are so effective in the Left’s strategy on guns. They pull at the heart strings and cause people to react in ways which make it harder for logic to reign supreme. It’s something right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. He suggested, “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” This means the threat of a child getting killed in a school or someone being shot in a movie theater becomes something people start fearing and wanting protection from. Even my mom told me to “be careful” when I went to see Star Wars last month because she was worried about Aurora happening all over again. It’s why Obama brought up what happened at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine during yesterday’s speech. The threat is, “it can happen to you, your kids, or your friends and we’ve got to do something NOW!” It’s effective whether we like it or not.

The Right’s reaction to gun violence or new laws is just predictable and tiresome. Some start screaming words like “unconstitutional” or “Bill of Rights” when talking about gun laws, while others use cold, hard logic when explaining why Obama’s “executive action” is meaningless and ridiculous. It’s an easy trap to fall into because that strategy has pretty much been engrained into our thoughts and action. If something is unconstitutional, we’ll say so or just outright mock of the “facts” the Left spews out when trying to work the court of public opinion on guns (or any other hot button issue). Facts are important, but the Right is doing things backwards when it comes to explaining WHY guns are okay and how they actually can protect us from criminals. Even the NRA’s “a good guy with a gun” message falls flat because, with respect to Wayne LaPierre, he isn’t best messenger and the narrative isn’t that exciting. LaPierre is telling the truth, but the message isn’t working.

What the Right should do is point out stories where the “good guy with a gun” actually stopped a bad guy with a gun. It’s why Kristina Ribali’s Hot Air piece on how a gun saved her from a neighborhood stalker is so awesome because it personalizes the situation. A mom defending herself and two kids from a bad guy. That’s something which can resonate with more than just the fire-breathing conservatives and libertarians. The same goes for the Chicago grandfather who was arrested in 2012 for owning an unlicensed gun after shooting a burglar. The Chicago Tribunehelped set the narrative right after the arrest (emphasis mine).

An 80-year-old tavern owner in Englewood believes it’s “unjust” that he is facing charges after shooting a burglar, but believes he will prevail in court.

“It’s wrong,” Homer “Tank” Wright said as he walked into his bar after being released from jail this afternoon. “Unjust that I can’t protect me.”

Wright eventually had the charges dropped because the court of public opinion was against police and prosecutors. Look at the young Kentucky woman who took the gun away from a robber and shot him or the ten-year-old New York boy who scared off two intruders by firing a shot at them. These situations may be rare, but so are mass shootings (even if the Left wants to pretend they happen every day). The Right needs to point out more stories like this because it personalizes the issue. The “this could happen to you” narrative is turned upside down because it shows the benefit of what owning a guns can do and how they can be used for personal protection. There are plenty of times guns in the hands of civilians have actually saved lives, but for whatever reason those stories don’t get publicized. It’s probably because they’re not “sexy news” but that’s why the Right has to find them and be willing to use them!

This doesn’t mean the Right needs to completely forget the Constitution or cold, hard logic when it comes to discussing issues. It just means they need to be shrewd in deciding when the right time is to start using them. Tank Wright’s story can then lead into a discussion on why restrictive gun laws force grandfathers to become criminals in the search for protection. Kristina Ribali’s story can lead to a talk on why the Founding Fathers made sure the Second Amendment was in the Bill of Rights. A talk about a college student using an AR-15 to scare off intruders can lead to a conversation about how Internet gun purchases still require a background check because they have to be shipped to an FFL dealer. The Right has to start learning how to message better because Congress won’t be in the hands of Republicans forever and it’s always possible for state governments to switch from one party to the other. We have to adapt our strategy or the Left will keep exploiting tragedy to push their agenda.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

These situations may be rare, but so are mass shootings (even if the Left wants to pretend they happen every day).

Bullshiite. Defensive uses of guns to stop criminals are at least a daily occurrence – “mass shootings” (defined as 4 victims) are a few times a year.
Get your facts straight, and stop using the left’s false narratives.

It doesn’t matter whether the tears were real or not (as some on the Right are stupidly focusing on), but that he choked up while mentioning dead children.

And here I thought no one would believe this over the top crying act by the one guy who when in the Senate could only find time to vote other than “Present” was when it came around to partial birth abortion.

The most important thing in the world for this President is the slaughter of children – well, for that matter, the slaughter of any American, and this brain dead Millennial dude with a chick’s name falls for this obviously fake and manipulative stunt.

Then totally ignores the fact that gun rights are winning all around him, and projects that because he is a sucker for acting drama that everyone around him is also and that therefore “the Right” should out-do the President and engage in even more emotional theatrics.

To “win” does someone have to rend their garments in deep emotional despair? Threaten suicide? Initiate mass panic?

Taylor, please go back and hang out with the rest of your buddies in the emotion based community. Making appeals to emotion is a tired, pathetic liberal tactic. The “right” is not going to make one inch of progress emulating the left.

Furthermore, this:

It doesn’t matter whether the tears were real or not (as some on the Right are stupidly focusing on), but that he choked up while mentioning dead children. That’s what going to be remembered from all of this.

Is exactly why people are wondering how “real” that was. I don’t buy it for a damn second. That was as close to a William Hurt in Broadcast News moment as I’ve ever seen.

Government policy should not be dictated by emotion. Instead of you telling us how we should be responding emotionally, you should be out lecturing the people in the middle that appeals to emotion are not what should be setting federal policy in the US.

The left is creating an atmosphere of hysteria based purely on emotion, spinning facts and repeating debunked myths. Their BS propaganda should be dispelled as myth, not emulated.

Recent gun sales say this guy is an idiot. No court will stand for a second amendment rewrite by executive order.

phadras on January 7, 2016 at 8:27 AM

No court? Really? The supremes were split 5-4 on the question, meaning ONE PERSON could have taken this right away. If you live in the real world, you know damn well it’s just a matter of time before some court, possibly even the irreversible one, decides we don’t have a right to defend ourselves with a gun.

As for the premise of the article, Taylor, I don’t disagree with using all methods of communication, including appeals to emotion, to win this battle. The only issue I had was the horrendous editing of your writing (or lack thereof). If you need a hand, just ask, m’kay?

The New Town shooting took place on Dec 14, 2012 and it took him 3 years to find out about it to get emotional enough to shed a few tears. This is all the media can talk about. He’s trying to take the foreign policy and immigration failures off the table and out of the media for the election. It’s always about politics with them. Oh, and he mentioned the killings in Chicago so we couldn’t say he hasn’t talked about that. All the boxes have been checked so dear leader can go play golf again.

So I’m late to this thread and ya I canna be fashed to actually read the blog entry but from skimming the comments can I assume it’s another well-reasoned thoughtful piece from our resident “compassionate conservative”?

Does new gun regulations expand government? If yes, then it contracts Individual and societal Liberty.

So we have to decide if we want BIGGER GOVERNMENT or MORE LIBERTY.

And so far, it appears, we want less Liberty.

It’s up to US to demand differently of our lying despicable politicians.

And it doesn’t look like we’re up to the task America.

So this is what we’re going to continue to see. A crying lying politician using emotion and our ignorance of the Constitution that was set in place to protect us from people LIKE HIM (and most of the Ruling Class).

And Nationalist Limited Government Conservatives have another challenge…..OVERCOMING THE MEDIA THAT IS AT WAR WITH US.

Tyranny is here America, will we repel it across the country at the ballot box this year?

I see your point, Taylor….up to a point. Certainly it is helpful to counter the mass shooting mania with concrete examples of guns saving lives.

Commenters are correct, though, that the Right can never win emotional arguments, that is the province of the Left. One of the reasons we are conservatives and not liberals is…reason. We believe reason should be behind every public policy, and reason is why most government programs fail. Reason is why our Constitution is brilliant and has stood the test of time.

Emotion always and everywhere makes bad policy. Emotion gave us Medicare, and Obamacare, and a runaway food stamp program, and “climate change” horse hockey. Emotion says the good intentions of government planners makes everything government does OK, even if the results are failure and massive debt.

“It’s in the Constitution” really needs no embellishment. The onus is always on the Left to say why these rights guaranteed by our Constitution should be infringed. Whether it is freedom of religious expression, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, we don’t need to make emotional arguments to defend these rights.

I cried when people lost their doctors and health care plans as a result of the PPACA. I didn’t see the tears washing away Barry’s lies or Roberts’ B.S., did you?

Hard to launch a P.R. campaign when the “nuetral” media isn’t nuetral.

What part of “Constitutional amendment” isn’t understood here? Why do I have to cry, wet my pants, and pass two or three hundred repetitive laws to say, “no, really, seriously, the 2nd Amendment protects your right to bears arms”?

The funny thing about this piece is that Taylor accuses the left of using the exact same tactics that the right is using to scare voters in regards to terrorism. In fact, of course, you’re far more likely to be killed by an all-Ametican wacko wielding an easily-procured legal firearm (or just a thug in a mugging gone bad) than you are by a marauding Muslim (wielding an easily-procured legal firearm). But, if you listen to Alinsky-literate GOP presidential candidates, you’d think a murderous jihadi was hiding behind every tree. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

This piece is horrible. It’s the observations of someone who doesn’t understand how this debate is won. To the extent that there is “emotion” needed to win this debate, it is in people’s ability to suppress it in order to see clearly what is at stake in being unarmed, and making level-headed decisions about protecting themselves and their families.

Obama’s crocodile tears influence no-one new . . . his same old left wing constituents are the only ones turned on by his pathetic crying. The man is a failure and that should make him sob. Give it up, the dolt is a certified failure..

The funny thing about this piece is that Taylor accuses the left of using the exact same tactics that the right is using to scare voters in regards to terrorism. In fact, of course, you’re far more likely to be killed by an all-Ametican wacko wielding an easily-procured legal firearm (or just a thug in a mugging gone bad) than you are by a marauding Muslim (wielding an easily-procured legal firearm). But, if you listen to Alinsky-literate GOP presidential candidates, you’d think a murderous jihadi was hiding behind every tree. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

Turnabout is fair play.

urban elitist on January 7, 2016 at 9:25 AM

Honestly, why do you bother posting this kind of tripe here ? Do you really think you’re crap is going to influence even ONE person here ? You are literally the definition of a TROLL.

Dang. This is the worst post I’ve ever read on my otherwise beloved Hotair.com. Messaging. yes. Because winning the messaging game is so much more important than winning in the marketplace of actual ideas. No thanks, Tay

Honestly, why do you bother posting this kind of tripe here ? Do you really think you’re crap is going to influence even ONE person here ? You are literally the definition of a TROLL.

deadrody on January 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM

He’s got a point. Those proud Americans in Chicago that are gunning down people in their own ‘hood were born and bred here. And they had no trouble at all procuring their firearms. No background checks, no forms to fill out, no licenses, no nothin’!

So where I’m sitting right now in an urban setting, the nearest police station is 6 minutes away by car. How is Taylor’s vaunted emotion going to protect me in those six minutes better than the logic of arming myself?

The funny thing about this piece is that Taylor accuses the left of using the exact same tactics…

Accusing? It’s a statement of fact. Obama gets all teary-eyed while throwing around provable falsehoods about 40%s and Internet gun markets, and then he talks about Sandy Hook and Aurora which of course are not related to the previous two things, and then his solution is to do something that doesn’t address the former and won’t stop the latter. It reminds me of how the left decided the answer to Columbine was trigger safety locks.

that the right is using to scare voters in regards to terrorism.

Yeah, I mean, it’s not like they blew up the World Trade Center. Twice. Or attacked our embassies abroad, or our naval vessels, or turned planes into ballistic missiles, or tried to blow up Times Square, or shot up Paris on more than one occasion, or went marauding around Europe ever since they came pouring over the borders, or even decided to start attacking soft targets here.

Terrorism is just a scare tactic. Nothing to see here. Move along.

In fact, of course, you’re far more likely to be killed by an all-Ametican wacko wielding an easily-procured legal firearm (or just a thug in a mugging gone bad) than you are by a marauding Muslim (wielding an easily-procured legal firearm).

urban elitist on January 7, 2016 at 9:25 AM

Literally the only way this is correct is by throwing in the qualifier about the thugs.

And also, there was nothing legal about the firearms in San Bernadino. They were acquired through a straw buyer and illegally modified.

But the important thing is, California had those laws in place, and that’s why San Bernadino could have happened, but didn’t. Right?

Oh, grow a pair, Taylor.
The right is winning the argument every time the Liar-in-Chief opens his yap.
As to the courts changing – that’s why I’m going to rely on my natural rights to protect my natural rights, rather than trusting gov’t to do so.

The left’s own logic defeats them if we bother to point it out. They claim that no mass shootings have ever been stopped by a good guy with a gun, when in fact every single one of them were prevented when a good guy with a gun was there. When a good guy with a gun stops a shooter whom still has ammunition, a mass shooting has been stopped or prevented.

No court? Really? The supremes were split 5-4 on the question, meaning ONE PERSON could have taken this right away. If you live in the real world, you know damn well it’s just a matter of time before some court, possibly even the irreversible one, decides we don’t have a right to defend ourselves with a gun.
runawayyyy on January 7, 2016 at 9:01 AM

I don’t know if this is “duh” obvious, but does anyone think that one of the SCOTUS judges won’t “decide” to step down before Obama leaves office?

Gee – I find it stupid that the law, the Constitution, what is right and common sense is failing and people absolutely ignore the number of lives saved by guns. It is well known, but also totally ignored that the mass killings only stop once the good guys with guns show up to stop them. Are there gun deaths in the country, yes there are. But I guess it is like most things if you have never looked down the wrong end of a gun barrel or been raped you just cant imagine it. But I still believe that there are things that you can do to at least slow gun violence down. The President and all his ilk refuse to do that and make new rules that will not do anything but make it tougher for people to protect themselves.

No court? Really? The supremes were split 5-4 on the question, meaning ONE PERSON could have taken this right away. If you live in the real world, you know damn well it’s just a matter of time before some court, possibly even the irreversible one, decides we don’t have a right to defend ourselves with a gun.

runawayyyy on January 7, 2016 at 9:01 AM

DC v. Heller was a monumental decision.

You could also argue the other way, that the whole ghey thing could be reversed as well.

Beyond the DEFENSE argument made in the above, OFFENSE use of a gun must be separated and defined by us and WE must demand such precision of the media and legislators.

WE have a Public Relations problem and it is up to US to DEMAND that the Left/media definition of this issue be precise and avoid blanket and inflammatory terminology. Or put another way, we must invoke OUR own terms of ‘political correctness’ in our media and public discussions; WE must be precise and demand that they use precision in reporting.

1. WE must DEFINE and separate “gun violence” (mental violence) from urban violence (territorial greed) and perhaps even political violence (to include religiously based attacks) on factual grounds:
a. mental illness
b. workplace violence
c. suicide
Where do any of these show up in South Chicago? And antipodally, where does territorial greed show up in Newtown or Fort Hood/Sacramento?

3. WE must separate long guns from hand guns.
a. “long” guns are used almost exclusively in mental and political violence cases
b. there is no black market on long guns (except maybe in NYS Where Cuomo has commingled hand and long gun-grip features ini regulation) and in drug-runner gangs or militaristic political factions.
c. shotguns by their very design and nature, have always been a separate low-threat category; shotgun ammunition should likewise be excluded from ammo regulation.
d. compressed air and pellet guns should be examined and qualified.

4. WE must separate gun OWNERSHIP from gun USE.
a. cars can be registered to blind/handicapped, underage, very elderly or otherwise non-driving citizens.
b. to carry or use a regulated gun, one should have a license (Not criminalize ownership)
c. to purchase ammo for a regulated gun, a Sheriff or state photo-ID license should be required.
d. that photo-license should suffice as proof of background check

5. WE must affirmatively encourage qualified gun USE/practice/discussion under police, NRA or other recognized authority.
a. schools should teach fundamentals of gun operation and safety (classroom and clubs)
b. what other so emotionally charged, yet prevalent “tool” is so ‘politically correctness’-banned or prohibited? And, to what end is it so forbidden? If we ban Driver Ed will that minimize underage DWIs?

If WE (and WE are not correctly confined/defined as The Right) don’t demand some responsibility and definitions on the media and the public’s perception, the Left will.

In New York, as in many other states, The National Rifle Association is regarded and holds a recognized, legal status for training, certification, expert recognition. I gladly stand for it on that basis, however, I do not stand for its blindly extreme positions that only inflame the opposition and that first audience is the media. WE must intervene to reaffirm the training and expert recognition.

Wait, WTF is this? What parallel universe is this Taylor Millard guy living in?

The idea of gun rights has become increasingly popular and the attempts to take away guns increasingly unpopular. In fact, it’s so popular that even our corrupt uniparty dictators don’t dare even TRY to actually strip guns away from citizens.

So, how exactly are we losing this battle? Are you telling me that Taylor Millard actually fell for the fake Obama tears?

Beyond the DEFENSE argument made in the above, OFFENSE use of a gun must be separated and defined by us and WE must demand such precision of the media and legislators.
WE have a Public Relations problem and it is up to US to DEMAND that the Left/media definition of this issue be precise and avoid blanket and inflammatory terminology. Or put another way, we must invoke OUR own terms of ‘political correctness’ in our media and public discussions; WE must be precise and demand that they use precision in reporting.
1. WE must DEFINE and separate “gun violence” (mental violence) from urban violence (territorial greed) and perhaps even political violence (to include religiously based attacks) on factual grounds:
a. mental illness
b. workplace violence
c. suicide
Where do any of these show up in South Chicago? And antipodally, where does territorial greed show up in Newtown or Fort Hood/Sacramento?
Nowhere else in our judicial system is such vagary promoted.
2. WE must SEEK and endorse sensible, precise, safe regulation—by specific AGREED-upon category
3. WE must separate long guns from hand guns.
a. “long” guns are used almost exclusively in mental and political violence cases
b. there is no black market on long guns (except maybe in NYS Where Cuomo has commingled hand and long gun-grip features ini regulation) and in drug-runner gangs or militaristic political factions.
c. shotguns by their very design and nature, have always been a separate low-threat category; shotgun ammunition should likewise be excluded from ammo regulation.
d. compressed air and pellet guns should be examined and qualified.
4. WE must separate gun OWNERSHIP from gun USE.
a. cars can be registered to blind/handicapped, underage, very elderly or otherwise non-driving citizens.
b. to carry or use a regulated gun, one should have a license (Not criminalize ownership)
c. to purchase ammo for a regulated gun, a Sheriff or state photo-ID license should be required.
d. that photo-license should suffice as proof of background check
5. WE must affirmatively encourage qualified gun USE/practice/discussion under police, NRA or other recognized authority.
a. schools should teach fundamentals of gun operation and safety (classroom and clubs)
b. what other so emotionally charged, yet prevalent “tool” is so ‘politically correctness’-banned or prohibited? And, to what end is it so forbidden? If we ban Driver Ed will that minimize underage DWIs?
If WE (and WE are not correctly confined/defined as The Right) don’t demand some responsibility and definitions on the media and the public’s perception, the Left will.
In New York, as in many other states, The National Rifle Association is regarded and holds a recognized, legal status for training, certification, expert recognition. I gladly stand for it on that basis, however, I do not stand for its blindly extreme positions that only inflame the opposition and that first audience is the media. WE must intervene to reaffirm the training and expert recognition.
OCULUS on January 7, 2016 at 10:48 AM

No.
You’re right on the requirement for the left and the media to use proper definitions and to stop inflaming things.
But: There should be no regulated ammo, and there should be no regulated firearms. Period.
If you think the NRA is extreme, you must be downright apoplectic over folks like GOA and the Second Amendment Foundation (I think I got that name right). The NRA is downright squishy compared to those folks.

I think your sister site “Bearing Arms” does a great job of pointing these things out already.

Mini-14 on January 6, 2016 at 6:16 PM

And how many LIVs do you think frequent Bearing Arms?

Taylor is right. This is another optics issue. Standing over the bodies of dead children and weeping parents and shouting, “You’ll take my gun away OVER MY DEAD BODY!” isn’t the way to go. Repeating the stories of people who suffered because they were denied the right to protect themselves and those around them IS the way to go.

The Right isn’t doing its job when it comes to convincing people guns are okay. Yes, open carry is legal in 46 states and groups like Institute for Justice have won important court battles over Chicago and Washington D.C.’s draconian gun laws.

Learn some history about this issue and see just how unconvincing we’ve been over the last 30 years or so. You’ll find your argument is neither original nor accurate.

Emotional was brought up during the gay marriage thing also…that has turned out well…

sorrowen on January 6, 2016 at 6:10 PM

Emotionalism is precisely why gay marriage became the law of the land. We were told it was about love, and denying same sex marriage rights was hateful and harmful to people.

Whether or not you agree, that’s exactly how that particular debate was won.

Emotion often trumps logic; as a conservative libertarian that annoys me to no end, but I recognize it.

Taylor is right that we absolutely need to show the same emotion as the left does on issue and is clear when he says that emotional rhetoric can be tied to facts and logic.

How many GOP responses have there been to Obama’s gun control speeches that have said “Hey, this is Jane Doe and she saved her family by using a legal fire arm?” A few, but not nearly enough. The left parades victims out for their cause(s) – when can conservatives do that?

We can play the game smartly and we aren’t. Yes, there are major victories and gun rights are viewed positively in most of the nation. However, the left never gives up and plays the long game. They will chip away at this and chip away at this and hope for that moment when the tide turns in their favor.

The contrast between this post and the comments helps to reveal the truest enemy faced by Conservatives regarding the war over our American culture: The media.

Only in print or on TV are Conservatives “losing” on issues such as gun rights, or definition of marriage. In real America, where people live and vote, Prop 8 would still carry today in California. It takes the media, and the Ninth Circuit Court, to undo the will of the people.

Focusing on Obama isn’t half good enough. The struggle must always focus first on the sources of cultural shift. Education institutions and the media are at the top of that list.

What the Right should do is point out stories where the “good guy with a gun” actually stopped a bad guy with a gun.

I’m curious. I’m a believer in 2nd amendment rights but has this even ever happened? I’m talking about someone having a gun preventing other people from getting killed in a mass shooting scenario. Not just a personal self defense type of thing. Has there been a situation where a regular citizen licensed to conceal or open carry saw someone attempting to commit a crime against a person/people other than himself and he pulled a gun out and prevented the crime?

I’m a believer in 2nd amendment rights but has this even ever happened? I’m talking about someone having a gun preventing other people from getting killed in a mass shooting scenario. Not just a personal self defense type of thing. Has there been a situation where a regular citizen licensed to conceal or open carry saw someone attempting to commit a crime against a person/people other than himself and he pulled a gun out and prevented the crime?

Has there been a situation where a regular citizen licensed to conceal or open carry saw someone attempting to commit a crime against a person/people other than himself and he pulled a gun out and prevented the crime?

proverbs427 on January 7, 2016 at 1:40 PM

Almost every day – but the national leftist media seldom reports those stories – local media does.
Learn how to use google or bing.

The Right isn’t doing its job when it comes to convincing people guns are okay. Yes, open carry is legal in 46 states and groups like Institute for Justice have won important court battles over Chicago and Washington D.C.’s draconian gun laws. The problem is these wins are really only temporary because the U.S. Supreme Court can change its mind, and laws can be changed. The Right has got to get better at messaging on why it’s okay for people to own guns or the Left will keep winning the emotional battle year after year and tragedy after tragedy.

I have to question this claim. I’ll grant that the left gets the propaganda victory in the media, but that was always inevitable. We know which side the media is on.

But I’ve seen no evidence for the claim that this emotionalism is winning the issue on guns. The demagoguery is failing.

Indeed. That particular phrase should keep you awake nights, methinks. Your messiah is a complete and utter failure whose greatest accomplishments will be overturned by the stroke of a pen on January 20th of next year.

Ovomit’s ‘tears’ for children do not extend to the millions of babies that are butchered live and unborn through his favorite baby mutilators – planned parenthood – every year.

Ovomit’s ‘tears’ for children do not extend to the thousands of Christian and Jewish (or simply, non muslim) children that are raped, murdered, and sold into slavery by his isis and aq brethren every WEEK.

Ovomit puts a little onion extract under his left eye to drip some water when he wants to infringe on people’s constitutional rights, and only then.

The fact that none on the left are calling bullshit on this stupid, vapid display makes me hate them all the more, and I don’t need to hate them more. I hate them plenty as it is.

Taylor is surprised conservatives lose the emotional argument to liberals? That’s the whole reason I’m on the right in the first place! I want reasoned and fact-based arguments. Liberals don’t have any.

Taylor is right. This is another optics issue. Standing over the bodies of dead children and weeping parents and shouting, “You’ll take my gun away OVER MY DEAD BODY!” isn’t the way to go. Repeating the stories of people who suffered because they were denied the right to protect themselves and those around them IS the way to go.

bmmg39 on January 7, 2016 at 11:27 AM

Yep. I don’t understand the vitriol toward Mr. Millard and this article for pointing out the truth. There are many fronts in this battle against the enemies of liberty. Limiting yourself to one aspect in this battle and not protecting your flank is a losing proposition.

The left is happily using their tried and true tactic of changing people’s hearts and minds through the entertainment and news mediums, and the educational system, as they already have on several issues, slowly and steadily over time. If we are not careful to “cut them off at the pass”, as it were, we may find our children saying, “Yeah, why do we need guns?” and then growing up to be the policy makers that our parents warned us about.

There is no “emotional” war over guns, it’s a right enshrined in stone by the U.S. Constitution.

Who is John Galt on January 7, 2016 at 3:26 PM

Yeah, the Ten Commandments were enshrined in stone also, given to us by God.

How many times do you hear those talked about in public circles?
If the left can get God out of schools and other public institutions, and from being first and foremost in people’s minds, you think they are going to worry about the Constitution?

I don’t think we’re losing. The only ones who respond to schlock like that are the far left, and they’ve always wanted an excuse to tax and regulate more, especially when the impact wouldn’t fall on any of them. More money and power at the expense of rural conservatives and independents? Double win

Just Obama doing what he does best- deepening divisions between Americans.

as it were, we may find our children saying, “Yeah, why do we need guns?” and then growing up to be the policy makers that our parents warned us about.

Sterling Holobyte on January 7, 2016 at 5:35 PM

The left has a much better message distribution channel than we do. If you play their game, then you will lose. If you let them make this about the “need for guns” then they will promote their lies better than we can every promote the truth.